I read that article (post below) twice. The second time I read it I wondered what about the Irish and British journalists? Did they play that game too? Why is it only American journalists who are talking about the compromises that were made in order to report from Iraq?
Is it possible that so many of the British & Irish journalists were so blinded by their anti-Americanism that they were incapable of reporting the truth from Iraq and Saddam's government knew this? How many times did I read/hear Saddam is a cruel, wicked tyrant, but ... blah, blah, blah ... America's only after the oil? How much was that worth to Saddam?
My big problem with many of the reporters in Britain and Ireland is that too few of them actually investigated whether Iraq's oil was a realistic motivation for spending billions & risking the lives of military personnel. They never added up the gain from toppling Saddam, which in financial terms is strictly the cost of Iraq's oil from a post-Saddam government as compared with the cost of Iraq's oil if we had just paid Saddam for it, and compared that with the cost of ousting him and rebuilding Iraq. We don't know what price the Americans will pay for Iraqi oil in the future, but my instincts tell me that the US will net a HUGE financial loss on the Iraq war. And, that this financial loss was obvious before the war to anyone who cared to have a serious look at the issue.
Too many journalists don't understand the basics of profit and loss.
